On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:29:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:29:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > > Why did we do SCC for then ? > > > So that we could cope with the increasing size of the archive. > > The announce mentioned the possibility to add some suites due to that. It > > didn't mention the possibility to add new architectures... but I feel that > > the logic is the same. > > It's precisely the same. Suites and architectures can be added now, > but they still need to be clearly worthwhile.
uuuuh, I'm curious, what is the definition of worthwhile for you ? I thought passing the SCC conditions was beeing worthwhile, excuse me if I look confused, but I _really_ am here. And I do ask for two of your hats, the ftpmaster and the DPL candidate. > > > > I'm certainly uneasy with your answers. To me, having a Debian > > > > GNU/FreeBSD > > > > looks like a very valuable goal and we should support it, each at our > > > > own > > > > level. One shouldn't need more "justification" than this. > > > The first pass justifications we have are at > > > http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html > > > If you're already satisfied that kfreebsd is a "valuable goal" you should > > > work on it, not expect anyone else to. > > You're not asked to work much on it. > > You're asking me to work on it right now. Where ? I've seen Aurélien asking what the candidates thought of integrating kfreebsd, most answered that it had to be done just after etch release (and I concur). I've not seen anyone asking for immediate action, or this was behind the scenes... > > > There are people who would like to repackage all of Debian optimised for > > > their particular processor, or without Gnome libraries, and all sorts > > > of other things. That's fine -- if that's what they want, they should > > > do it. But to actually have it be in the archive and on the mirrors, > > > it should pass some basic minimum standards of being useful. > > I don't discuss that. I simply say that IMO kfreebsd-i386 has reached > > those goals. > > I'm glad you're convinced, but I'm not. > > > And if you think that some of those goals are not reached, > > I would much rather be swept off my feet by how clearly the goals have > been reached, beyond my wildest expectations. Surely if kfreebsd is worth > doing, it should be spectacularly amazing, not barely reaching whatever > minimal levels get set. I'm not opposed, I'm just not convinced. /me stares incredulously When I see some of our _official_ ports (you know like hurd-i386 where we have bugs like "nice() doesn't work", "select() is buggy" and so on[0], am I allowed not to understand how we can have hurd as an official port, and not kfreebsd that is able to build a significant part of the archive _and_ having it working ? I'm sorry, but there _must_ be a step I'm missing here. [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=libc0.3;dist=unstable -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgp9TJ1KT2kc9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
